You do law. No, YOU do law.

He and his wife are both in law, and both want out. Resources exist to permit one to escape. The other must remain behind to pay loans.

Who makes it to freedom? Who gets left behind?

Arriving at that decision can wreak hell on a marriage.

A successful partnership requires an alliance, which depends upon shared goals. If the primary shared goal was being wealthy, powerful lawyers, and that goal cartwheels in flames into the tarmac at three hundred feet per second… the alliance fractures. Sometimes the alliance transforms into opposition.

You do law. No, YOU do law.

That kind of opposition.

My client met his wife at a first-tier law school. They were in the same class, and their shared dream was simple – they would graduate at the top of their class, join powerful, big-name law firms, and make a lot of money. They would have a nice house, maybe a couple of kids, fabulous vacations – and a kitchen with granite counter-tops and an AGA stove.

This was a simple, bourgeois dream – stability, money, family. Naturally, they were intellectuals, so they’d have a subscription to the local symphony – but their dream was about making it, in predictable, concrete terms.

Then reality hit.

They hated their firms. He got laid off, which came as a relief. She went in-house, and to her surprise, hated it even more than the firm. She ended up quitting.

They relocated to another city, where he found a job at a smaller firm. He hates it less, but still basically hates it. She’s still out of work, dragging her feet. He’s paying both their loans every month – and resenting it.

She says she can’t do law anymore – it would crush her soul. She needs to go to grad school and study art or she’ll go crazy.

He wants to go to grad school and study history – or he’ll go crazy.

They both think the other should stay and do law to pay the bills.

Remember the old shared goal? Charred embers. There are new goals – and they’re no longer mutual.

When he’s not slaving at the firm, they’re fighting. That’s driving them both nuts.

Her argument is simple: she cannot do law. She hates it. She refuses to consider it. If she can’t go to graduate school, she’s heading home to her family. Alone.

To him, time at a law firm represents a waste of his life. He’s willing to pay off his own debt, but there’s no way he’s going to tackle hers.

He has a point. It’s unfair to expect him to pay her loans. He could maintain his own loans and get on with his life, escaping to do something with meaning. He’s talking divorce.

I’m sympathetic to her desperation, too. She’s not my client, so I haven’t heard her side of the story, but according to him, she hates their shabby apartment in the new city where they’re living. And with school loans, they can barely afford that place.

These two need to get their work lives sorted or they’ll never work as a partnership again. That means they need some new, mutual goals.

There are three aspects to life – playing, working and loving – and they must be tackled in order. If you don’t have working down, you’re entering a partnership with unfinished business that will cripple things up.

Your work tells you who you are – it represents what you create during your life, and it provides you with confidence that you contribute something valuable to the world around you.

This couple has no authentic work – so they are flailing, groping for an identity. Until they discover the answer to who they are, they won’t know their work, and they won’t know each other.

Even if I were seeing this couple as a couple, and not merely serving as the individual therapist for one partner, it would not be my job to keep them together. I show them what they have – where they want to go from there is their business. This partnership might need to come apart, so they can go their own ways and find their own work. Once that undertaking is accomplished, they could find the confidence to support a new partnership.

Trying to make your partner give up his search for who he is so you can follow your own muse is a recipe for disaster. There will be resentment. The partnership will fall out of balance. One partner will be problematized (she needs to find herself) – the other will over-produce to compensate (he’s working to pay off both their loans.) The alliance will erode.

It’s not enough to make the other person “do law.” You each have to find your own way out.
========This piece is part of a series of columns presented by The People’s Therapist in cooperation with AboveTheLaw.com. My thanks to ATL for their help with the creation of this series.

If you enjoy these columns, please check out The People’s Therapist’s new book.

44 Responses

God, I’m glad I partnered with a science oriented non-lawyer (who doesn’t hate his work at all).

Knowing “your work” is HARD. You know that, but I’m not sure that everyone else does. And knowing intellectually that finding “your work” is hard isn’t the same as beating your own head against it.

From my little bit of knowledge and experience in Buddhism I’ll even go out on a limb and suggest that that task – trying to know our purpose and work – while dealing with all of the daily petty crap and difficult people that come in life to distract us – is every day’s perfect teacher. And that teacher really kicks your ass.

This couple would probably be better off divorced – neither is willing to compromise. They also sound extremely immature, egotistical and selfish.

Here’s my laundry list of inappropriate expectations:

1. She has no right to expect he will pay off her loans.
2. He has no right to expect she will get a job in the law.
3. She has no right to expect a better QOL without a job.
4. He has no right to expect she will “give up her muse.”
5. She has no right to expect he will “give up his muse.”

They both need to grow up and realize they are now in a situation of their own making which requires sacrifice from which to escape. Yet even if they escape, I doubt their marriage will survive. Assuming they pay off their loans, who is going to work while the other pursues his/her muse? What happens if he agrees to cover the bills so she can go to graduate school (he’s the one with the job) and she refuses to reciprocate when it’s her turn?

Possibly, they can both do law, just in a different fashion. The “second oldest profession”, is not a respectable way to approach the law. It might be their experience, there is no law anymore, just money.

Many lawyers are willing to violate the laws that we have, with malice and reckless indifference, for money.

The courts, frequently do the same, for the wealthy.

Justice, our laws, were designed to make ALL equal, under the law, that is what made America the land of the free.

They would both respect each other, and themselves, if they would practice law differently. Large firms focus on money only, the “big score”, unethical practices, etc.

There is other money out there for them….fighting corrupt corporations, ethics in public office, defeating an abusive organization, that is so rich and so powerful, they no longer care about our laws, could bring satisfaction that will last for BOTH of their lifetimes.

Maybe they should decide to work together on a project, rather than lose their souls, slaving for “The Firm”.

If they try to restore some honor to the “profession”, they might get self respect.

Perhaps they should just *both* go back to grad school, or just waiting tables for that matter – it’s both unrealistic and not very marriage friendly for either of them to expect the other to keep doing a job they despise. The trick is to figure out a plan by which they can either pay off the loans, or not have to, and there’s more than one way to skin a cat, so to speak.

The reality is that they may need more than a therapist. I mean, ask the guy whether they would have the same problems if they weren’t facing a mountain of debt. If not, they need someone who can show them all their financial and career options. There’s a lot out there right now, but it can be hard to pick through them all…

For instance:
1) If they each consolidate their loans through the Federal Direct program, either or both of them can repay their loans strictly on the basis of their income (payments are 10% of the portion of their AGI that is above 150% of the poverty line). Further, if either or both of them is engaged in any non-profit or public -interest work, their loans are forgiven after 10 years, no matter how much they’ve paid off. So if she wants to go to grad school for 4 years and is employed as a TA during that time, her payments will be minimal (if she’s single and makes 40k as a TA, her payments on the law school loans, regardless of the amount of her loans, would be in the range of 140 a month. And if she goes into academia after 4 years of grad school, her loans will disappear after 6 years, no matter how much is left to pay back.

2) Lawyers aren’t actually paid all that well. Even firm lawyers don’t make much when you figure it on an hourly basis, and moving to a small firm, he’s probably not making much more than he would in a number of other professions for which he could be qualified. If he doesn’t want to be a lawyer, what does he want to do, and how does he get there. I know one lawyer who went from a small firm job earning 70k per year to being school principal and then superintendent earning 100k+ with little hassle. He had to take some classes, but it was cake compared to law school. I know another lawyer who went from large firm work into finances as an investment adviser. I don’t know how much he makes, but he’s a hell of a lot happier. Shit, a girl who I went to law school with worked in big-government for a while, then opened a hipster roller-rink/bar. Point is, lots of people feel trapped by law, but there’s no need for it.

People shouldn’t let lawyering or student loans ruin their relationship. I’ve done that shit, and it’s not good and it’s not necessary. I’m still a lawyer, but I take it easy now. I opened my own shop, I take a lot of work that makes me feel good (court appointed representation of children in abuse and neglect cases), I take other work that pays good, and there’s no one to tell me what to do or how or when to do it.

The field of law is so rich and so varied that I am sure that they each can find something to their liking. Management within court systems, public defender, legal services, district attorneys or prosecutors, legal research with publishers. Moreover, a J.D. is often a qualification for other jobs in management, teaching, marketing, or sales.

What I suspect is that something more is going on with this couple and that job dissatisfaction is a symptom, not a cause.

My wife and I have been in this situation over and over again in the last 20 years. I’m not sure why, but our fight has usually been over who gets to make the sacrifice. I don’t want her to be miserable, and she doesn’t want me to be miserable. So she killed herself at a job where they drove her, literally to a breakdown, so that I could try a career in music, which went nowhere.

I went to law school, and went the big firm route to take care of her so that she could pursue writing and making clothes professionally. Eventually, the big firm began to take its toll.

I can’t say I somehow enjoyed being miserable at my job, but I just couldn’t let her down. I’ve grown so much from our partnership, I can’t imagine not doing anything I can do to keep her safe and well.

She’s now working for the government, and so far loving her job. When a chance came up for me to go to a small firm and a potentially much healthier environment, she insisted that I allow her to take on the burden for a while, that it was her turn.

It’s only been a few weeks since I left the big firm, but my blood pressure is already down and I’m sleeping much better. My wife and I are still making a lot of adjustments, because for years I was the only one working full time.

I suppose I have no particular insight into your client’s situation. For whatever reason, they’re both focused on their own pain. That’s not a judgment – I’ve been there, and it’s an easy place to get to when life is miserable for months on end.

Our relationship has always been a choice. And every time I really try and imagine making the choice to leave, I just don’t want to. In fact, I want to stay badly enough that I’m willing to expose myself to the embarrassment of admitting I’m wrong, or I’m scared, or I don’t feel able to cope.

If I could give any advice, it’s that these are choices we make. Sometimes, the only available options don’t seem attractive, but there’s still some power of choice in which consequences you’re willing to suffer.

Matt- This is a great post/response! At the end of the day, this couple really does have to choose how much value they get out of their partnership and whether that value outweighs the sacrifices they may have to take in their careers or other areas of their life. At the end of the day, it isn’t the loans or the legal profession that is ruining their marriage; it’s their own perspectives about what matters in their lives.

@Matt L, I love your post. I’m a newly married lawyer who married another lawyer who wants out of law. I’m okay doing law and I’m okay with him not doing law and taking the time to figure out what he wants to do. If my husband and I feel the same way that you and your wife do 20 years from now, I’ll feel like I’m living a good life no matter what we’re doing for work.

I’m in a mid law job right now that is pretty OK. I’d rather do something non-law, but this is OK.

But I was in the FIRM FROM HELL a while back after a merger, and it almost killed me before I moved to OK mid-law – but I also stuck it out because the spouse was having a down cycle in his industry and was out of work for a bit. I didn’t mind carrying the burden either – in a healthy relationship that’s what you do – and he’d do the same for me. During those times I hated the burden, and he hated the unemployment, but we didn’t hate each other.

My next goal is government or teaching, which won’t be much of a paycut (if any), and spouse is making a bit more, so it will balance to favor me (I hope) for a while.

I have no idea how people deal with transferring the hatred of the burden onto the other spouse, though. That seems like a very possible end of the road.

What is interesting to me, actually, is that you don’t see the scenario described by Will more often. (Or at least, I haven’t.) When I was at a big firm I saw lots of 2 JD couples who both hated big-firm practice. The most typical scenario was that around year 5 or so the woman got pregnant, went off on maternity leave, and never looked back. The male half of the pair slogged on alone in the trenches. I never heard much overt resentment from the guys (in fact, many of them seemed to speak of their wife and kids in reverential tones suggestive of the Victorian ideal of the Angel of the House and the brood of darling cherubs) but there did seem to be an awful lot of cavorting in conference rooms in the wee hours with nubile junior associates while after-hours word-processing was turning around the latest set of edits. I was always wondering how much the at-home wives knew — or at least suspected — about those late nights at the office and if they were perhaps just shrugging it off, sticking the child in the bugaboo, and heading out with the Amex to load up on organic produce and designer yoga-wear. One thing that the pair Will describes has going for them is that they don’t appear to have any children. Once small, helpless humans enter the equation it becomes a lot more complicated. I agree that in some respects the overt way that Will’s patient and his wife are hashing this out makes them sound like a pair of jerks, but in some respects it seems healthier to just have the fight out in the open at the outset, rather than ending up in a sort of “compromise” in which no one gets what they really want and they try to make up for it through deception and retail therapy. And at least they seem to smart enough to not bring any children into the equation before they have finished doing their own growing up.

Disagreed: Compromise. To paraphrase Dennis Leary, “life is full of $hitty compromises.” In this case, they both had big dreams and took on big loans to finance them. Now that they’re in a crappy financial situation, one of them (the wife) doesn’t want to pull her own weight to get them out of it. He seems willing to compromise by staying in his legal job (even though he doesn’t like practicing law), but she isn’t willing to use her law degree in a way that contributes to a solution.

No amount of cajoling seems to be working, so he needs to call her bluff rather than enable her selfish behavior – let her leave and crawl home to her parents. I’m sure they’ll be absolutely thrilled to have their divorced, near-30 year-old daughter with a degree from a 1st tier law school move back into her old room. Assuming she spins things so well that her parents actually put out the welcome mat, it won’t be out for very long until they – like her ex-husband – start pressuring her to get a job. Likewise, her loans will be her responsibility now that she’s divorced. Faced with this, maybe she’ll think the grass wasn’t so green after all, but by then it will be too late. Her ex-husband will have moved out of their terrible apartment, switched to a government job, and started dating someone who actually cares about what he wants to do with his life.

Your post just reminded me that I have NEVER met a single man in law practice who I would ever, ever want to touch naked. BLEAHHHH. Cavorting – I’ve seen it happen before – but God help me, I’d need to be pretty damn drunk to find a fellow lawyer appealing.

I haven’t tried women yet, but none of the law firm women attorneys held any appeal either (especially if they were partners – too hardened and bitchy).

I think the first issue, both for this couple and for the therapist, is to get rid of this idea that everyone can find or engage in work they love, let alone like.

At least 80% of americans, if not more, don’t particularly like their jobs. That is just a fact of life. You have to pay bills.

I’m not saying that everyone should just stick it out where they are absolutely miserable, particularly if there are other options, but this idea that he or she is going to “find their muse” and find some work that they love and that is rewarding is a little too pie-in-the-sky.

the fact that she is threatening to go home and live with her parents if she doesn’t get her way demonstrates the immaturity involved here.

The real issue is that they people don’t like work and responsibility. Yeah, they probably don’t like the practice of law, most lawyers I know don’t (and I’m a lawyer who also doesn’t love it), but you grow up and face your responsibilities.

I completely agree, and am so glad that someone said it. I know very few people who like their jobs, even fewer who love them. Some are happy some of the time, some are miserable most of the time. For most of us, a job is a means to an end, not the end in itself. The idea that we should all love what we do and strive to find a career that makes us happy and fulfilled is a a dangerous one. Most people cannot support themselves doing what they love, so they do a job that enables them to do things they like the rest of the time. No one should be miserable, but achieving purpose and life validation through your work is a ridiculous dream for most people.

I agree that “following your bliss, man” is usually not financially/professionally feasible. Hey, if I could quit tomorrow and support myself, with cash flow and benefits, doing the creative work and cooking I love more than business work, I would. Maybe I will some day – if any of that generates the work and benefits of a “regular job.” More likely I will not.

On a related note, I VERY MUCH wish that lawyers would stop promoting this B.S. in regard to legal work. Having enough of them (usually the old farts) wandering around and proclaiming that this is the only thing they’d ever want to do (“I was on death’s door with my heart attack, and wondered what I would do with the rest of my life, and knew that I would practice ___ law and never change a thing” – YES I heard this), that their legal work was God’s Calling to them, or that they’d never “worked” a day in life because it was all sheer pleasure – that is incredibly damaging to younger sane lawyers.

Let’s be honest – this is a job, like every other job it will suck at times – but this attitude of “this is not a job, it is my identity/holy calling/purpose in life” is dangerously dishonest. It is a higher paying, safer job than many – but no one should have to feel that it is God’s calling/single purpose or else they’re unfit to work. Or to doubt themselves if they don’t feel deeply and personally fulfilled and completed by being lawyers.

I really disagree with some of these points. On the one hand, it is indeed VERY difficult for people to find work that they really enjoy, let alone love. However, people make the mistake of thinking that doing work that you “love” means turning something that is a hobby into a career. That’s not necessarily the case at all. Finding work that is, at least most of the time, satisfying and relatively enjoyable is about understanding your talents, skills, needs and wants, as well as what options you have available. Most people do not (and will not) take the time to figure these things out (or, in many cases, they may not even have the appropriate time and resources to figure these things out). People are given very few resources in figuring out what work is best suited to them. It’s not a “ridiculous dream” if some people really want it. But of course, there are those who do not care – work is just supposed to be a paycheck. And that’s fine too as long as they are satisfied with their life outside of work. Virtually anything is possible if the will to achieve it is there. If you don’t really believe that, then, frankly, I don’t know what else to tell you.

Thank you so much for your columns. They’ve really shown me that I’m not alone.

I’ve worked 5 years in the legal field (since college) and want to leave it behind. However, I worry that since my billables performance hasn’t been good and that I’m pretty burnt out (along with coworkers, many of whom have stress-induced anxiety disorders) that I would have similar troubles at a new job. Perhaps a future column topic could be on getting past this worry?

The other big issue is that other jobs don’t consider my legal experience to be the relevant experience they are looking for (and with the economy the way it is, they can afford to be picky).

Will, it seems to be a sad situation. I guess I come from the perspective that being happy involves first wanting to be happy and wanting others to be happy, and neither of this couple really seems to be there right now. It’s probably easy for me to say that from the sidelines being 6 years out of soul-crushing BigLaw and two years out of soul-crushing in-house work. I think if they wanted to make *something* work, they probably could, but their perspective is so narrow right now, it’s hard to see how this partnership can last in the immediacy of their misery.

Loathing one’s work as a lawyer is not at all uncommon, and it has a way of working itself into the soul. These are serious problems; no one should dread going to work every day, but indeed that is the experience of many lawyers who see their energies drain, their hair become prematurely grey, the bloom in their cheeks disappear into sallowness, and their life forces bleed with every stroke they type on their computers at work.

But what to do? This writer left corporate practice to open a mediation business: Oh my, what a financial mistake! But not once did I regret leaving that godawful firm, where my young colleagues aged and withered in their souls and wished they didn’t have kids and mortgages. I went through hell but eventually found my way back to academia & teaching & earning good money.

A second point this story raises: Crushing debts that strangle so many young JDs. But what about the untutored attitude of law school applicants who blithely assume:”I’ll just get a $160k job when I graduate and get rid of those pesky loans in 5 years.”

Question: Why aren’t new law applicants stopped cold by law schools and by the urgent caution that no one (no one) should take on even $100k of debt these days to get into law school?

These stories of marital strife, debt and lawyer misery need to get out to undergraduates, to prelaw advisors, to law school admissions consultants on the web (how gaily they hand out personal statements and application advice! they will also gaily tell you “Everyone has a job!” ).

Please make these stories more widely available to undergrads. They are legion.

“A second point this story raises: Crushing debts that strangle so many young JDs. But what about the untutored attitude of law school applicants who blithely assume:”I’ll just get a $160k job when I graduate and get rid of those pesky loans in 5 years.”

Question: Why aren’t new law applicants stopped cold by law schools and by the urgent caution that no one (no one) should take on even $100k of debt these days to get into law school?”

I think it took me 4 years to pay off $120,000 on an $80K salary (with tiny raises each year).

Of course, that was back in 2000.

As long as the only thing you are doing is dishoarding your debt, it’s doable. You just can’t live in a major metro area.

We need to stop over-thinking the “plight” of this couple. They are in trouble, separately and together, because they plotted their futures by the seductive beacons of things. Granite counter-tops do not bring happiness or contentment. Ditto symphony tickets, great houses, country club memberships, or the rest.

If you make the big choices in life driven and blinded by the lure of stuff, you will choose badly. They probably should not stay together; probably do not belong together; probably have nothing in common but for their “wish lists” of goods. I have a hard time giving a rat’s ass about them. If they don’t care enough for themselves to aspire to more than the trappings of wealth, if they don’t get the value of life founded on joy and interests and shared efforts and intentions and accomplishments; if they are not something more than perpetual shoppers, then who could care about them? Let them wander the malls — together or not, it doesn’t matter — forever looking in from the outside and never getting what they missed.

The tale of this couple is not about law, and it is not about marriage. It’s about two grown-ups who are each hollow at the core and trying but failing to fill their barren interiors with the stuff of movie sets.

“We need to stop over-thinking the “plight” of this couple. They are in trouble, separately and together, because they plotted their futures by the seductive beacons of things. Granite counter-tops do not bring happiness or contentment. Ditto symphony tickets, great houses, country club memberships, or the rest.”

Well, you need some of these things, “great houses”, “contry club memberships” to give you access to economical, social, and political networks. The “things” are a means to an end, for some people. I’m not sure that it’s materialism, per se.

And these things cost money.

It’s certainly better than inheriting your station in life.
Note: I don’t have a “great house”, “symphony tickets”, or a “country club membership.”

One can only wish that our “industry” (interesting term, that) were filled with people who made their choices — in life and in work — on some premise more fulfilling and enduring than a need for granite counter-tops and symphony tickets.

If lacking empathy for able-bodied, intellectually-equipped malcontents, whose great disappointment with life is that the means to those granite counters is too hard and doesn’t nourish their individual muses, means that I am judgmental, I’ll take that hit.

One of the scary things about life is that sometimes you get what you deserve. Put another way, in order to get the right things, you have to want the right things. There I go again, being cold and hard. Brrrrr…

My husband and I were lawyers. Resources permitted that we both gave it up together. Though we never had any student loans to think about. I think this story is more of a money/student loan issue? If they didnt have the loans wouldnt they be able to do what they wanted?

‘Your work tells you who you are – it represents what you create during your life, and it provides you with confidence that you contribute something valuable to the world around you.’

This is exactly the crux of the problem! People who believe this make the wrong choices over and over again — they pick the wrong career, the wrong job — because they believe it will bring them status, give them an identity. Then they stay in the wrong career, the wrong job, because they believe they will lose their identity if they were to change. We are NOT our careers. We are NOT our work. Playing, loving and contributing to society or community or even family — voluntarily and not for pay — is the basis for happiness. Work is what you do to make enough money to support your playing, loving and contributions to society, etc.

I know from experience. I made the wrong choice, and my life went completely off the rails. I got caught up in expending tremendous personal resources in perpetuating a fraud on myself. The people who were attracted to me were actually attracted to the position I had in life. And when I started to realize it was not sustainable to remain in a Biglaw career I detested, my personal life fell apart. I wasted two decades of my life building a house of cards.

Very good points. They echo something I read in the book “Never Eat Alone”:

Studies indicate that well over 50 percent of Americans are unhappy at work. Many of these people are doing well, but they are doing well at something they don’t enjoy. How we got ourselves into such a situation isn’t difficult to understand. People get overwhelmed by the decisions they have to make about their jobs, their families, their businesses, their futures. There are too many choices, it seems. We end up shifting our focus to talents we don’t have and careers that don’t quite fit. Many of us respond by simply falling into whatever comes down the pike without ever asking ourselves some very important questions.

Have you ever sat down and thought seriously about what you truly love? What you’re good at? What you want to accomplish in life? What are the obstacles that are stopping you? Most people don’t. They accept what they “should” be doing, rather than take the time to figure out what they want to be doing. We all have our own loves, insecurities, strengths, weaknesses, and unique capabilities. And we have to take those into account in figuring out where our talents and desires intersect. That intersection is what I call your “blue flame”—where passion and ability come together. When that blue flame is ignited within a person, it is a powerful force in getting you where you want to go.

I think of the blue flame as a convergence of mission and passion founded on a realistic self-assessment of your abilities. It helps determine your life’s purpose, from taking care of the elderly to becoming a mother, from being a top engineer to becoming a writer or a musician. I believe everyone has a distinct mission inside of him or her, one that has the capacity to inspire.

[…] there any reason a relationship cannot survive, for a lawyering couple the answer may well be yes. The People’s Therapist: He and his wife are both in law, and both want out. Resources exist to permit one to escape. The […]

Perhaps the issue isn’t whether she should continue working as a lawyer. Based on what I’ve read, perhaps she wants to be in a graduate school environment.

For many people, university is a means to get a job. However, for some, the school environment is a great place to be. My brother teaches at university and he speaks regularly about grad students who will remain students (in a variety of post-doc positions) until they are forced against their will into the non-academic world. Presumably this applies to the teachers themselves.

In this instance, the wife was a very good law student and wants to be a very good art student. Is there much demand for people who teach at law schools (which may allow her to be in the academic environment and still make a living)?

I’ve been interested in academia in the past, but honestly, ONLY because it doesn’t have billable hours. I’m souring rapidly on it because frankly I’d rather practice law than teach fourth tier students who have been tricked (by the school or their own ignorance) into thinking that $120,000+ at a low ranked school will get them a $160,000/year Big Law job.

Others can stomach it, but I don’t think I could keep up the facade that everything at 4th/5th tier is just fine as long as I get mines. And, I don’t know, the BS in business is at least grounded in reality (which the BS in academia is NOT).

The way to avoid billing hours in law is to do plaintiff’s contingency fee work.

That’s how I avoid billing hours without driving students into massive amounts of debt. Although it involved a significant pay cut so far. I hated the entire billing hours thing. It’s much less stressful.

I disagree. At least with billables, you can be somewhat certain you will receive some payment for your work. I did far too many PI cases when I started where I wasted years of my time, energy, and mental well-being for abolutely nothing. The only thing worse than being told you suck everyday by partners is being told that you suck by a jury and not getting paid for 2 years of work on a case.

I only work on disability cases, so I either deal with administrative law judges or federal judges. Down here, ERISA disability cases are decided on summary judgement by Federal Judges and SSA cases are always decided by Administrative Law Judges and Federal Judges. I just don’t take cases where the client isn’t actually disabled.

In private disability cases, the insurance companies really don’t feel like getting in front of juries so they make good offers.

Academia is not the pancea it is made out to be in that (like every other area of teaching), the demand for law professors pales in comparison to the high supply fueled by disgrunted lawyers who loved the academic environment but hate practicing law. If you do not have a federal clerkship, published articles, and a preplanned research plan, you cannot find full time work.

I’d love to teach, but unfortunately, its not a realistic option. Also, all of the academics with whom I have spoken stress that law schools and even graduate schools are not interested in people who want to teach. They want people to do research and publish….teaching is looked at as a necessary evil ( a way to pay the bills) rather than an end in itself.

I agree. I may well be able to get in to a local lower-ranked school (have the publications etc.) but 1) when I wanted to be a prof in the past, it was for research and writing – not teaching and 2) I’m not sure that I can cope with “academic” topics (as a straightforward, no-BS person). Some of the research and paper topics embraced in academia are ridiculous to the point of laughable – wouldn’t we be better off with disgrunted lawyers finding something else to do in the world that involves DOING SOMETHING rather than writing about “Klingon language contract interpretation” or “Gendered and sexual identity aspects of corporate taxation and partnership accounting?”

I really enjoy your blog. I have re-read several of the articles many times as you have, better than anyone else I have read, hit the nail on the head in describing big law firm experience. I have been working at a big law firm for about a year now, and knew within 2 months that it wasn’t for me. Just looking for the right time to make a break for it.

It’s time for your appointment

Will Meyerhofer, JD LCSW-R is a psychotherapist in private practice in TriBeCa, in New York City.
You can visit his private practice website at: www.aquietroom.com.
Will holds degrees from Harvard, NYU School of Law and The Hunter College School of Social Work, and used to be an associate at Sullivan & Cromwell before things changed...
Now, in addition to his work as a psychotherapy, he writes books and blog entries and a column for AboveTheLaw.com.